The Use of Witness Testimony in Criminal Trials. The American legal system is built on the adversarial process, where both objective evidence (documents, physical evidence) and subjective witness testimony are presented and cross-examined. The right to confront witnesses (as discussed in Crawford v. Washington) ensures that subjective accounts are scrutinized alongside factual evidence before a judge or jury decides the outcome.
law
confidential sources
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). This Supreme Court case addressed whether journalists could refuse to testify about confidential sources. The Court considered both the objective need for evidence in criminal cases and the subjective arguments about press freedom. The majority opinion emphasized that courts must balance these interests on a case-by-case basis, reviewing both facts and testimony to reach a fair outcome. The case illustrates the American approach of acting as a judge—considering all available evidence and subjective claims before making a ruling.
legal tradition
American managers’ approaches to conflict resolution reflect historical legal precedents by emphasizing structured, evidence-based processes rooted in the country’s adversarial legal tradition. This tradition prioritizes the careful weighing of both objective facts and subjective testimony, mirroring the way courts operate in the United States.
Adversarial Process and the Role of the Judge. The American legal system is built on an adversarial model, where opposing sides present evidence and testimony before a neutral judge or jury, who then makes a binding decision. American managers, drawing from this model, often see themselves more as judges than mediators: they listen to all parties, consider documentation and witness statements, and then render a decision.
Integration of Objective and Subjective Evidence. Just as courts balance physical evidence with personal testimony, managers in American businesses are trained to gather both factual data (e.g., records, emails, policies) and subjective input (e.g., employee perspectives, witness accounts) before resolving disputes. This dual approach ensures that decisions are both fair and defensible.
Inluence of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Legal precedents such as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (established by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947) and the rise of arbitration and mediation in the late 20th century have influenced corporate practices. Many American companies now utilize mediation, arbitration, and other ADR mechanisms, reflecting the legal system’s endorsement of structured, evidence-based conflict resolution outside of court.
Emphasis on Documentation and Process. Legal history in the U.S. underscores the importance of process, documentation, and transparency. Managers are expected to document conflicts, follow established procedures, and provide clear rationales for their decisions—practices modeled after legal standards and reinforced by court rulings on due process and fairness.
Precedent and Consistency. Just as legal precedent guides future court decisions, American managers often look to company policy, past cases, and industry standards to ensure consistency and fairness in conflict resolution.
Chicago Seven
The Trial of the Chicago Seven (1969–1970): This trial of anti-Vietnam War protesters was notable for its highly public, contentious hearings, with defendants, prosecutors, and witnesses confronting each other in court. The proceedings were widely covered and became a symbol of open, adversarial justice in the U.S..
trial of the century
The O.J. Simpson Trial (1994–1995): Known as the “trial of the century,” this highly publicized courtroom drama saw both prosecution and defense present their cases openly, with the accused and accusers present. The trial was televised, and the process was marked by direct confrontation and cross-examination, embodying the American value of open, adversarial hearings.
Repeals
There have been many famous repeals or court decisions in American history. In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal (the American slogan for segregation of white and black Americans) was no longer constitutional, an act that negated their earlier ruling in 1896.
The first case in the U.S. in which the court system determined that a law was unconstitutional and should be repealed occurred in 1803. It was the case of Marbury v Madison, when the Supreme Court decided that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore null and void.
The case of Betts v Brady ruled that the 6th and 14th Amendments of the constitution guaranteeing a right to legal counsel does not mean that the government has to provide counsel for someone who cannot afford it. Later, the case Gideon v Wainwright overruled this decision, and anyone accused of a crime is entitled to free counsel if he/she can’t afford an attorney.
Speedy Trial
Again, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states clearly what Americans expect: „In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“
Various U.S. state and federal laws guaranty a more specific right to a speedy trial. In New York, for example, the prosecution (accuser) must be ready for trial within six months or the charges are dismissed. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 established time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal case.
Americans anticipate that there team leads not only hold a first hearing promptly. They want the conflict resolution process to come to a conclusion, to a judgement, promptly as well. A manager who is slow to decide – to make the „judgement call“ – is seen as someone who has weak resolve. To have resolve means to deal with something.
Americans believe that maintaining forward movement is critical to the success of every team.
Coffee Burns
In 1992, 79 year old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s in New Mexico, spilled it on her lap, suffered multiple third-degree burns, and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere. She subsequently sued McDonald’s.
Although the jury found Liebeck to be partly responsible for her injuries, based on evidence that McDonald’s coffee was unreasonably hot and had caused other injuries in the past, the jury decided to award Stella the equivalent of two days’ worth of coffee sales revenue for the entire restaurant chain. Some of the evidence presented at the trial includes:
1) An engineer from the University of Texas and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation both testified that the risk of harm from the coffee was unacceptable.
2) An expert witness testified that the number of burns the coffee caused was insignificant compared to the number of cups of coffee sold every year.
3) A McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that the coffee at the serving temperature was not fit for consumption because it would burn the throat.
4) After several other similar lawsuits, McDonald’s knew about the risk of serious burns from its coffee, but did not warn customers of the risk.
Eyewitness testimony
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness’ point of view.
Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions are unreliable; being easily manipulated, altered, and biased.
Many U.S. states are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.